Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Remember how apoplectic the younger President Bush made leftists? And how he
was hysterically labeled at some times an idiot and at other times an evil genius? Dana
Milbank doesn't draw the similarity to frantic leftist swipes at Bush, but he
does note a desperate
inconsistency about GOP attacks against Barack Obama:

[Paul] Ryan, in his brief commentary, protested that Obama is
"interested in tax reform for corporations -- but not for families
or small business." He further accused Obama of implementing health-care
and regulatory policies that favor big businesses and big banks.

Most people regard government favors to "big business" as somewhat the opposite
of socialism, so -- for the moment -- we'll go with the premise that these
attacks are inconsistent. Milbank blames the problem on "their thought leaders"
not "agree[ing] on the proper line of attack."

Milbank is on the
right track, but another example shows at once where he has yet to go, as well
as why so many Repulicans are having trouble opposing Obama effectively:

[House Speaker John] Boehner, asked at a news conference this week
about Obama's series of speeches on the economy, replied:
"If I had poll numbers as low as his, I'd probably be out
doing the same thing if I were him." ... [bold
added]

Really? Since when was doing anything relative to the economy -- aside from
getting out of the way -- the business of a government official? In a similar
vein, since when has lowering taxes for anyone been "unfair" or the moral
equivalent of a doled-out government favor? Well, I used to think that it was the
Democrats who regarded lower taxes as a government expense and Republicans who
regarded taxes as money taken from individual citizens.

The
reason Republican "thought 'leaders'" can't agree on how to attack Obama is
that too many of them agree with him on the premises that running the economy
is the government's job and that government looting of private citizens is
okay. Too often, the "disagreement" amounts to how much interference and
looting to do, and on details as to how to accomplish them. This is why Ryan's
attacks differ only on which pressure group they are targeted for: Americans
worried about the government running the economy, or voters who dislike large
corporations. (At least in the eyes of politician who doesn't see a
principled difference between these groups, would Americans who want the
government to butt out of the economy be a "pressure group" to be pandered
to. Also, lest you think I am being unfair to Ryan, remember that he wants to save -- not sunset -- Social Security.)

Perhaps the acceptance of common premises among leftists and too many
conservatives might also explain why Milbank himself doesn't see why
Republicans can't agree on a line of attack: Actually, attacking government
favors to big businesses (or any other group) and attacking socialism would be
quite consistent, if done for the right reasons. Otherwise -- if the attacks merely appeal to what the politician regards as competing pressure groups -- they represent a grasping at straws at best.

Even a parrot can
"criticize" Obama for being a socialist. But words are meaningless without
cognitive context and accomplish nothing without appropriate actions. No wonder
so many GOPers are having a hard time attacking Obama: He got where they're
going first! The GOP will change direction or die. There is no need or room for
two entitlement state parties in America.